COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[Jarvis323]

Yes. And we know it isn't quite true, as the vaccine isn't 100% effective. But your claim was something different, and wrong.

Please read what is being said to you here, because your response to Peter was non-responsive too.

Peter's response was in agreement, under the condition that it is possible for the virus to mutate so that it evades the vaccine.

 

[russ_watters]

Peter's response was in agreement, under the condition that it is possible for the virus to mutate so that it evades the vaccine.

I cannot believe for the life of me that you could have this misconception at this point in time.

Peter's response also contained disagreement, which you haven't acknowledged.

You haven't responded to the point several of us made, so it is tough to know if you are wilfully ignoring it or just don't understand it. It would be better for all of us if you would accept that we are serious and respond accordingly so we at least know you read and understand what was said.

 

[Jarvis323]

Peter's response also contained disagreement, which you haven't acknowledged.

You haven't responded to the point several of us made, so it is tough to know if you are wilfully ignoring it or just don't understand it. It would be better for all of us if you would accept that we are serious and respond accordingly so we at least know you read and understand what was said.

What is the point "several of us" have made that I have ignored?

 

[russ_watters]

What is the point "several of us" have made that I have ignored?

The vaccine causes the virus to die out, limiting/preventing further mutations.

 

[Jarvis323]

The vaccine could cause the virus to die out, preventing further mutations.

If the virus dies out, then vaccinated people won't be getting exposed to the virus.

 

[russ_watters]

If the virus dies out, then vaccinated people won't be getting exposed to the virus.

Ok...so, what?

 

[Jarvis323]

Ok...so, what?

I said that exposing more vaccinated people to the virus will help the virus adapt to be able to infect vaccinated people.

You said that is false.

Your argument is that the vaccine could eradicate the virus.

Do I need to keep going?

 

[russ_watters]

I said that exposing more vaccinated people to the virus will help the virus adapt to be able to infect vaccinated people.

You said that is false.

Your argument is that the vaccine could eradicate the virus.

Do I need to keep going?

Evidently yes, you do need to keep going, because you don't seem to be able to finish the line of logic! Sheesh!

The final step is that if the vaccine eradicates the virus, then it can't mutate anymore.

And connecting back to the claim: if more vaccinations and more virus/vaccine interaction results in eradicating the virus, it leads to less adaptation, not more adaptation.

 

[Rive]

There have already been mutations that have helped the virus do better against vaccinated people.

Most often, those mutations came from areas with ongoing widespread pandemic, and not from areas with thorough vaccination.

This argument above is the worst kind of half-truth. More immune people combined with many copies of the virus may end with mutations. That far, it's true.

But: vaccination (with most kind of vaccines) gives better immunity and higher immunity rate in the population than a pandemic, so the chance to get infected and the amount of copies both are lower => with vaccination we actually get lower chance to get a bad mutation.

 

[Jarvis323]

Evidently yes, you do need to keep going, because you don't seem to be able to finish the line of logic! Sheesh!

The final step is that if the vaccine eradicates the virus, then it can't mutate anymore.

And connecting back to the claim: if more vaccinations and more virus/vaccine interaction results in eradicating the virus, it leads to less adaptation, not more adaptation.

I said if x then y.

You said if not x, then not y.

Do you see the problem here?

 

[russ_watters]

Do you see the problem here?

Yup, I definitely do.

 

[Jarvis323]

But: vaccination (with most kind of vaccines) gives better immunity and higher immunity rate in the population than a pandemic, so the chance to get infected and the amount of copies both are lower => with vaccination we actually get lower chance to get a bad mutation.

What does this have to do with anything I've said?

Are you trying to argue that a sub population of non-vaccinated people can go around coughing on vaccinated people without any possible reprocussions for adaptation/immunity escape?

 

[PeterDonis]

There have already been mutations that have helped the virus do better against vaccinated people.

References, please?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, I do.

1. Applying the same argument to smallpox and polio clearly leads to absurdity. That should tell you something.
2. Typically, microorganisms evolve to be less dangerous rather than more. An organism that kills its host is unsuccessful, rather than successful.
3. Mutations happen with a certain probability during replication. If you have no replication, you have no mutations. If you have only a few organisms out there, the odds of a favorable mutation also go down.
4. "Overcome the vaccine" is not even a thing. A vaccine is not a virus-specific poison that is injected into your bloodstream.

 

[russ_watters]

Jarvis is going to take some time off from this thread to process this discussion.

Thanks.

 

[PeterDonis]

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ar...cines-are-effective-against-the-delta-variant

This article seems to support point #2 that @Vanadium 50 made in post #5,294: while vaccines might be less effective at preventing infection altogether by the Delta variant, they are still just as effective at preventing illness serious enough to require hospitalization.

This is a point I didn't bring up in my previous response, but is a perfectly valid point: selective pressures in general for infectious agents favor less harmful variants which cause just enough illness in their hosts to spread to other hosts, without seriously harming the hosts.

 

[atyy]

I see people have objected to @jarvis's statement in post #5625 - if read in the context that his response was to my statement - I thought it was a good point.

 

[russ_watters]

I see people have objected to @jarvis's statement in post #5625 - if read in the context that his response was to my statement - I thought it was a good point.

Probably a typo on the post # there, I think you mean 5265. I had actually "liked" a prior post in the discussion (5251), but I didn't see the line of reasoning going downhill at the time.

Anyway, it's best to let this line of discussion go.

 

[Rive]

I thought it was a good point.

It's just based on a half-truth which is often exploited by some anti-vaxxer crooks. The selection pressure on the virus is about immunity, not just about vaccines.
In this regard vaccines (most of them) are far better than the unreliable immunity achieved the 'bio' way.
So travels of the 'bio' immune people should be the concern instead.

 

[PeterDonis]

In this regard vaccines (most of them) are far better than the unreliable immunity achieved the 'bio' way.

Why do you think this is true? And do you think it is true for all viruses, or just SARS-CoV-2?

 

[atyy]

It's just based on a half-truth which is often exploited by some anti-vaxxer crooks. The selection pressure on the virus is about immunity, not just about vaccines.
In this regard vaccines (most of them) are far better than the unreliable immunity achieved the 'bio' way.
So travels of the 'bio' immune people should be the concern instead.

When read in context, there did not seem any intent to promote an anti-vax agenda.

 

[Rive]

there did not seem any intent to promote an anti-vax agenda.

And I did not said that either.

do you think it is true for all viruses, or just SARS-CoV-2?

I know that some other human Coronavirus can do it too (as I recall there was a group experiment about this), and I think that there may be further examples amongst the understudied group of 'colds'.

Why do you think this is true?

You mean, at this point this is still in question?

 

[pinball1970]

Why do you think this is true? And do you think it is true for all viruses, or just SARS-CoV-2?

I would say true for the viruses that cause serious disease/death where vaccines are available and where there is a significant risk of infection.
COVID vaccine Globally? – justified
Smallpox Vaccine today in 2021 in the USA? – Not justified (this has been mentioned on pf in a thread, by you possibly? Wrt 911?)
Ebola Vaccine in Congo? – Probably justified. A discussion on pf about that https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/nearing-a-cure-for-ebola.976033/

 

[PeterDonis]

You mean, at this point this is still in question?

It is for me. I want to see a reference, or at least an argument, that vaccines will always give better protection than immunity acquired by having the viruses itself. It is certainly not obvious to me that that will be true for all (or "most") vaccines and all viruses, which is the claim you were making.

The only argument I have seen being made is specifically about mRNA vaccines and SARS-CoV-2: the argument there is that the mRNA vaccines specifically target the spike protein, which is how the virus gets inside cells, any viral mutation that avoids the mRNA vaccine would also make the virus unable to infect people since it wouldn't be able to get inside cells any more. Whereas with immunity acquired by having COVID-19, you don't know what your immune system actually is targeting; it might have learned to recognize the spike protein, or it might have learned to recognize some other part of the virus that is nonfunctional and so could mutate without impairing the infectivity of the virus.

But that argument is specific to the way mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 work; it certainly doesn't generalize to all (or "most") vaccines and all viruses.

 

[PeterDonis]

I would say true for the viruses that cause serious disease/death where vaccines are available and where there is a significant risk of infection.

How does this imply that vaccines give better protection than having the virus itself and recovering from it? I don't see any such implication. The only implication I see is that, if you haven't been infected, being vaccinated is better than not being vaccinated. But that wasn't the argument @Rive was making that I was responding to.

 

[BillTre]

The only argument I have seen being made is specifically about mRNA vaccines and SARS-CoV-2: the argument there is that the mRNA vaccines specifically target the spike protein, which is how the virus gets inside cells, any viral mutation that avoids the mRNA vaccine would also make the virus unable to infect people since it wouldn't be able to get inside cells any more. Whereas with immunity acquired by having COVID-19, you don't know what your immune system actually is targeting; it might have learned to recognize the spike protein, or it might have learned to recognize some other part of the virus that is nonfunctional and so could mutate without impairing the infectivity of the virus.

Seems like a good argument to me.
One might also expect variation among different people's immune responses.
A person with a weaker immune response might gain more benefit from a more directed immune stimulation like you describe.

 

[Rive]

I want to see a reference, or at least an argument, that vaccines will always give better protection than immunity acquired by having the viruses itself.

This topic, and what I wrote is Covid specific. I can see what caused the misunderstanding (multiple vaccines for the same virus also referenced the 'general' way).

The problem is, that 'bio' immunity for Covid is not reliable. Some asymptotic people got high antibody levels: some none. Some people who got it hard has good levels of antibodies: some none. It's not about 'always'. It's about reliability. It's an unreliable 'sometimes'.
Unlike 'bio', vaccine doses are calibrated to give good, reliable and lasting antibody levels.
Looks like sino-stuff is not that good.
Some vector vaccines can be tricky too, but in general, in case of covid, the 'western' vaccines are giving a far more reliable protection than getting it 'bio'.

This part of the topic started from that half-truth about vaccines generating immunity-bypassing mutants.
Since immunity achieved by vaccines is more reliable in this case => giving less chance to re-infect and infect: keeping the pandemic more curbed, opposing the anti-vaxxer interpretation it's the 'bio' what's troublesome, not the vaccine.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It is for me. I want to see a reference, or at least an argument, that vaccines will always give better protection than immunity acquired by having the viruses itself.

I think the only sound argument is with viruses like rabies, where after infection the patient will never contract it again - because he is dead.

I don't think I buy the argument upthread that the vaccine is better because our bodies respond to the virus differently. Our bodies respond to the vaccine differently as well. Look at the side effect thread. I'd certainly want to see a study. The argument seems to look at only half of the story.

I suppose that in principle, our bodies could develop antibodies against the spike and some other protein and thus be marginally better than a vaccine which immunizes against the spike alone. I don't think I would consider the difference between 95% and 95.000001% protection worth quibbling about.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Regarding immunity from infection vs immunity from vaccines, one theoretical reason to think that vaccines might be more effective at inducing immunity is that viruses have evolved measures try to hide themselves from the body's immune system while vaccines are designed to stimulate strong immune responses. Furthermore, the prime-boost strategy used by most of the vaccines might be more effective at inducing long term immunity (though we don't have a lot of data on long term immunity yet).

Empirically, an observational study in Denmark identified 11k people infected during the first wave of COVID-19 and tracked whether they were infected during the second wave of infection. They found previous infection conferred 80.5% protection from reinfection (and a 93% protection against symptomatic infection). This level of protection is similar to that reported for the more effective vaccines (e.g. Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax). However, the study did find that previous infection was not as effective at protecting older adults (age > 65) from subsequent infection (~50% protection) whereas the vaccines above showed no signs of reduced efficacy in older individuals.

So, for younger individuals, it seems like there is a similar amount of protection from previous infection vs vaccination, but in older individuals, vaccination likely provides stronger protection than prior infection.

On the issue of the evolution of variants in vaccinated populations, one leading hypothesis on the evolution of the variants is that arise during long term infection of immunocompromised individuals (see my previous post for more discussion and citations to the scientific literature). This idea fits with general thinking about natural selection. It has been observed (for example, in studies of the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria), that low levels of selection give the best chance for new traits to evolve. If there is no selection, there is no pressure for new variants to take over the population. Similarly, high levels of selection are problematic for the evolution of new traits because 1) if selection is too strong, the organism just dies off before resistant variants are able to arise and 2) mutations that might provide new traits (e.g. antibody resistance) usually also compromise the function of the protein, so these neofunctionalizing mutations often need compensatory mutations to come along to restore the function of the protein. High levels of selection impose a high cost to these neofunctionalizing mutations, which stops them from accumulating in the population.

Long term infection of an immunocompromised host would provide a perfect environment where the virus is exposed to selection by the human immune system, but that selection is too weak to eliminate the virus. This gives the virus the opportunity to accumulate mutations until eventually a set of mutations arise that allow it to get around the immune system and replicate more quickly than the original virus.

Under this hypothesis, the greater number of people infected, the greater the chance that the virus might find such a suitable host where this type of evolution can occur. Increasing the population of vaccinated individuals would decrease the number of vulnerable individuals and limit the spread of the virus, lowering the number of people carrying the virus, lowering the probability that the virus could evolve new variants. Having fully vaccinated people in the population would present the "strong selection" case discussed above, which would likely present challenges to the evolution of new variants.

Consistent with this idea, preliminary data from Public Health England suggests that the Pfizer vaccine seems to protect against new variants such as alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2). It's likely that these variants spread throughout the world primarily because of their increased transmissibility, not their ability to get around pre-existing immunity.

 

[atyy]

Consistent with this idea, preliminary data from Public Health England suggests that the Pfizer vaccine seems to protect against new variants such as alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2). It's likely that these variants spread throughout the world primarily because of their increased transmissibility, not their ability to get around pre-existing immunity.

In that article, the second dose difference between alpha and delta variants is about 6%, but the first dose difference is about 15%. What do you think about the suggestion that the long interval between first and second doses in the UK gave delta additional help? @PeroK gave estimates in this post in another thread of vaccinations with first and second doses in the UK at the start of May, when delta's advantage started becoming apparent there.